The world is going through a critical stage that carries many indicators prefiguring a crisis, including primarily the dramatic developments in the Ukrainian crisis which prompted some observers to consider the current scene as a prelude to a third world war. In many respects, the Ukrainian crisis unveiled several intersecting and intertwining lines. On one hand, the exchange of accusations and display of military power reflected numerous tensions. On the other hand, efforts are underway for pacification and containment, which raises the question about paths of the current crisis and the tools that the United States possesses to approach it.
A Complex Scene
Ukraine is a country of significant relevance to the former Soviet Union and Russia, the Soviet’s heir. Historically, Ukraine was the Soviet Union’s second most populous country with the largest agricultural and industrial production and it used to host a large part of the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal. Some analysts believe that Ukraine is the country that could make or break Russia’s image as a superpower and that Russia without Ukraine is just a country and with Ukraine an empire.
Arrangements for ending the Cold War made between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and US President George Bush Sr. stipulated that Ukraine won’t join any anti-Moscow bloc, which raised expectations then about a possible dissolution of NATO as the grounds for its establishment no longer existed. In tandem with the Ukraine-related developments, Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled the West’s disregard for Russia’s security concerns. In return, US President Joe Biden threatened a resolute response to any Russian military action in Ukraine. According to revealed US intelligence, Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine may start between mid-January and mid-February, suggesting a complex scene the following indicators give rise to:
1. Intensifying Military Build-up: Increased militarization by all parties dominates the current scene. On the one hand, Moscow sent more than 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian border while Washington sent warships to the Black Sea and an additional 3,000 troops to Eastern Europe and put 8,500 soldiers on alert. The British Ministry of Defense also delivered anti-tank missile systems to Ukraine. Turkey, too, is to deliver Bayraktar TB2 drones to Ukraine, to fight against the Russian-backed separatists.
2. Duplicate Statements: Double statements took control of the situation, in a way that it seemed more of rhetorical maneuvers. For instance, Biden declared that “it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they further invade Ukraine.” However, he stressed that no US forces will be sent to fight in Ukraine, acknowledging divisions within NATO over the appropriate response to Moscow in the event of invasion. This is consistent with the statement of the Secretary-General of NATO, in which he pointed out that NATO has no plans to deploy forces in Ukraine. On another vein, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky criticized Biden’s statements and welcomed the negotiations conducted by France as it reduces the risk of escalation with Russia.
3. Confused US Behavior: Tracing Washington’s positions on the Ukrainian crisis reveals considerable confusion of the US behavior. This confusion can be attributed to 1) Washington’s desire to pivot to the Indo-Pacific, encircling China being the most significant threat and 2) the confusing position of the European allies, which may leave it bear costs of the crisis alone. While the United States aims at besieging and curbing Russia to assert its global leadership, it is quite aware that the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis would cause it substantial losses, given Moscow’s ability to resolve the conflict in its favor, which will hit the US global leadership in dead center. On the other hand, Beijing is expected to take advantage of Washington’s preoccupation with this crisis to reinforce its position and status on the global stage.
4. Re-Shaping the Anglo-American Alliance: The Anglo-American alliance materialized clearly in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003; however, it witnessed considerable decline over successive years, as has been amply reflected in London’s position on Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and its failure to respond to the US escalation at that time. However, the current crisis unveils contours of a re-formulation of the Anglo-American alliance, particularly with Britain’s split from the European Union and its aspirations for a greater role on the international stage. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared that the United Kingdom and its NATO allies will unite in their fight against Russian aggression in Ukraine. In a phone call with French President Emmanuel Macron, Boris and Macron agreed to continue working together to develop a set of sanctions that would take immediate effect if Russia invaded Ukraine.
5. Lack of Unity on the European Front: Lack of European unity has become a chronic symptom whenever dealing with challenges facing the aging continent. With regard to the current Ukrainian crisis, there has been a wide divergence in the positions of European countries on the appropriate response to Russia if it invaded Ukraine. Germany, for instance, adhered to a calm non-escalatory rhetoric and France sought mediating the simmering atmosphere while countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark bolstered their support for Ukraine through making cybersecurity or military assistance pledges. That said, European countries, likewise, have concerns of the outbreak of a crisis that will have major humanitarian and economic repercussions and will result in greater Russian influence in Europe in a way that may cause reshaping of the political map of the continent.
6. Supremacy of Russian Nationalism: Tracking the current scene may reveal several indicators of the rise of Russian nationalism, given the grounds that justify the developments of the crisis, all seem to be related to the national sentiment pertaining to the Soviet legacy. The current risk by Russia can be viewed in the context of a number of factors, including Russia’s endeavor to restore the Soviet legacy, which will enable Moscow to restore its worthy international position. Alternatively, it may be viewed as an overseas risk geared towards achieving a powerful victory linked to Russian nationalism which may contribute to overcoming internal tensions in Russia.
7. Inklings of a New International Order: The current Ukrainian crisis can be seen as one of the indicators of the transformation of the unipolar international system. Moscow’s strive for restoring the Soviet legacy means, in substance, its desire to restore the status it enjoyed during the Cold War as a major power. Notably, the Ukrainian crisis isn’t just a conflict between two countries; it has repercussions on entire Europe, and even on the Western bloc across its areas of influence, which will overshadow the entire international system. Seemingly, Moscow realizes that the rift within the Western front makes it opportune for Russia to change the political, security and military equations in Europe. What’s more, Russia endeavored to form an anti-US front that includes China, a country that poses a priority threat to Washington. For example, in early February, Putin revealed signing two $117.5 billion worth oil and gas agreements with China, pledging to increase Russian gas exports to the Far East to tighten the noose on Europe.
Potential Paths
In mid-December 2021, the Russian Foreign Ministry handed a set of demands to the US and NATO that it sees will help contain the current tensions. These demands included providing legal guarantees of non-accession of new countries into NATO, returning of NATO forces to where they were stationed in 1997 before the accession of Poland and the Baltic states, and the non-involvement in any military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia. Washington and NATO rejected these demands and warned a firm response against Russia in the event of an invasion of Ukraine. Given this, four potential trajectories related to the Ukrainian crisis seem to loom ahead, which can be detailed as follows:
- Pacification, even if relatively: Despite the increased militarization, all the involved parties are aware of the high cost of the military confrontation. As such, in the midst of pacification and mediation efforts, the crisis may calm down, albeit relatively or temporarily. While Russia has multiple interests in Ukraine, the military intervention would be a venture fraught with danger, leading to international embargo campaigns, more economic sanctions, and increased prospects for stopping the Nord Stream 2 project. When it comes to the US, Washington is reshuffling its domestic and foreign policy priorities. Internally, it experiences several complex and overlapping challenges and externally it needs to reset its priorities in line with the Chinese threat. Therefore, it isn’t a good time for Washington to be involved in a crisis on the European front. As for the Europeans, the general atmosphere suggests pacification will be in their interests as escalation will mean economic, strategic, and humanitarian costs that are too huge to bear. So, pacification seems to be playing into the hands of all parties.
- Continuation of Tension: The second path that the crisis may take is the continuation of the existing state of tension, yet without further escalation. Moscow may see that the continued pressure it exerts against Ukraine in particular and Europeans in general as contributing to strengthening Moscow’s position and reinforcing its ability to blackmail the West to achieve more gains, either by reducing the interdependence between Europe and Ukraine, supporting autonomy of the Donbas, or striking deals pertaining to the deployment of NATO forces in the Russian vital space. In a recent press conference, President Biden stated that he believes Putin doesn’t want an “all-out war” yet he is looking for confrontation to put Washington and NATO to the test. In other words, Putin works to achieve strategic gains for Moscow by capitalizing on Europe’s unwillingness to engage in confrontation and Washington’s desire to concentrate its efforts on China. This trend is reinforced by what Russian media reported on 7 February, quoting a senior Russian diplomat who stated that the fate of nuclear arms control talks between Russia and the United States will, to a large extent, depend on how the negotiations on Moscow’s security demands progress. On the other hand, Washington and its allies’ approval of some Russian demands towards pacification does not mean they will stop the current military build-up, given skepticism about Moscow’s intentions and behavior, which means continuation of tensions without confrontation.
- Launching a Limited Military Operation: Perhaps the growing militarization unveils the intentions of parties to carry out a military operation. Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 reinforces this trend. The military operation will involve advancing to the Donbas –where the Moscow-backed separatists operate– and controlling it. This step will prepare the ground for Moscow to tighten its grip on Kiev. The Russian presence in the Donbas will promote the chances of overthrowing the anti-Moscow Zelensky regime. In parallel, Moscow will work on tightening its economic grip on Ukraine and launching cyber-attacks to paralyze government facilities. According to this scenario, Moscow will succeed in reducing Ukraine’s chances of joining NATO or getting closer to the European Union. In response to this, Russia will encounter severe economic sanctions that will certainly have an impact on its economy. However, getting back to the case of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, it becomes evident that Moscow has the ability to circumvent the sanctions and place pressure on the Europeans.
- Russian Invasion: The crisis could culminate in a Russian invasion of the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, with the aim of overthrowing Zelensky and establishing a pro-Moscow regime. Ukraine is seen as an organic part of Greater Russia, meaning its re-annexation would mean restoring the Soviet legacy, whose collapse was described by Putin as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”. Moscow taking this step means taking a grave risk that will have serious repercussions on Russia. If such a Russian invasion is carried out, Washington and its allies will be required to show no tolerance and respond with force. Such a move may unite the western transatlantic front and push the international system to impose a massive blockade on Moscow and increase the pressures, giving rise to “attrition scenario” similar to what happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, leading up to its collapse.
The US Approach to the Crisis
In approaching the crisis, Washington seems to adopt a “carrot and stick” strategy. It announced its total rejection of Russia’s so-called “red lines”, indicating that its response to the Russian escalation will go along three parallel paths: 1) imposing economic sanctions that may rise to banning Russia from the SWIFT financial system, 2) intensifying the military and economic assistance to Ukraine, and 3) reinforcing the US presence in Eastern Europe. The United States, however, declared it had no intention to send US troops to Ukraine, reiterating its willingness to support the diplomatic path.
In this connection, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stated that President Biden has offered Russia a diplomatic path, but Washington is prepared for every possibility. Overall, the tools that Washington can utilize to deal with the crisis are as follows:
- Military Build-up: Thus far, Washington has focused on the military tool by providing the appropriate military equipment to Ukraine. The US Embassy in Kiev announced the arrival of US military aid to help Ukraine defend against a possible invasion by Russia. This aid included close to 200,000 pounds of military equipment, including ammunition for the front-line defenders of Ukraine. On the other hand, Washington works on strengthening its presence in Eastern Europe. In a press conference early this month, John Kirby, a spokesman for the US Department of Defense stated that 1,000 US soldiers that are based in Germany will reposition to Romania and bout approximately 2,000 troops that are based in Fort Bragg base in North Carolina will move to Germany, Romania, and Poland. Kirby underscored that these forces will not fight in Ukraine but will ensure the robust defense of NATO allies, noting that the United States is not the only country that sends forces to Eastern Europe, in reference to Paris’s decision to deploy its forces in Romania.
Despite this US increasing military build-up, Washington confirmed that it would not intervene militarily against Russia in Ukraine. However, questions arise about the appropriate US response to Russia if it enters Kiev and the impact of this step on Washington’s standing and its global role. Indeed, the US military intervention in Ukraine is an extremely complicated issue and would ignite a third “world war,” let alone the US public rejection of engaging in wars that long-drained Washington’s capabilities and caused US citizens to bear a colossal cost.
- Economic Sanctions: As relying on the military tool remains quite difficult, the sanctions tool seems more appropriate to deal with the current crisis, being a more realistic and less costly tool to the West and had been used by Washington against Moscow for years. In essence, the sanctions tool depends on intensifying the economic sanctions that would inflict substantial damage on the Russian economy, sanctioning Russian government officials (under Magnitsky Law), excluding Russia from the Group of Eight (G8), and perhaps excluding Moscow from the World Trade Organization. In addition, in view of a recent statement of the US State Department underlining Washington and Europe have common understanding about the financial measures that will have a powerful impact on Moscow, Washington may ask Berlin to cancel the Nord Stream 2 project with Russia.
While the economic tool may be effective, it still has some deficiencies. The economic response to a military action may be demonstrative of weakness. Additionally, over years, Moscow has been able to circumvent the sanctions imposed on it. Further, imposing sanctions on Russia has repercussions on Europe, which make Europe a little cautious about scaling up sanctions on Moscow.
- Diplomacy: While Washington moved towards redeploying its soldiers in Eastern Europe, it affirmed its willingness to support the diplomatic path, strengthen dialogue with Moscow, and intensify the diplomatic efforts and communications with European partners. In this respect, President Biden opened a channel for direct communication with his Russian counterpart and the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken made a call with his Russian counterpart on the situation in Ukraine. There has also been talk about a European tour by US State Department Adviser Derek Chollet, which included Bulgaria, Romania, and Belgium, for discussions with Washington’s European partners and NATO allies on the Russian military build-up on Ukraine’s borders. Focusing on this tool contributes to promoting understanding and reducing disagreements, emphasizing the possibility of finding common ground.
While the diplomatic tool could prove effective in containing tensions and opening direct channels of communication between the disputing parties, its effectiveness remains subject to the military power and the parties’ ability to impose economic pressure.
- Promoting Relations with Ukraine: In 1994, Washington and Moscow gave Ukraine assurances of respecting its sovereignty and borders in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal inherited from the Soviet Union, without giving any undertaking to do so. Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Washington has turned to strengthen its relations with Kiev and intensify its military and economic support to it. Washington going along this path will undoubtedly strengthen Ukraine’s position against Russia. However, the power gap between Moscow and Kiev is very wide, and Kiev is not likely to withstand any military action by Russia. So, the US goal is just to raise the cost to Moscow.
- Using Alternative Arenas: Analyzing the current military scene, we find that Moscow possesses several tools that would cause any military strike to play in Russia’s favor. This has been reflected in the Western statements declaring nonmilitary intervention in Ukraine. As such, Washington’s search for an alternative arena to pressure Moscow seems a viable option, and even a suitable alternative. Washington may press this pressure on other agents, possibly from Central Asia and the Caucasus, to reduce the pressure on itself to focus more on its new priorities, or may alternatively cause the situation in Syria to aggravate in a way that drains Russia. Additionally, Washington may turn to using Turkey to stir up trouble in the areas it shares with Russia or may unsurprisingly re-use its old weapon against Russia, i.e. terrorists, especially with the Taliban tightening its grip on Afghanistan.
Despite the appeal of this tool, employing it entails several risks, simply because the aggravation of the situation in any region may negatively affect Washington itself and relying on Turkey as an arm of Washington in the face of its opponents imposes so much pressure on the US administration given the uncertain Turkish behavior. Finally, the use terrorists to pressure Moscow may give rise to similar risks, as was the case with September 11 attacks.
Overall, developments pertaining to the Ukrainian crisis suggest double indications of pacification and escalation, yet these indications took the crisis to a dangerous level, due to the occasional escalatory statements made by parties. This means that Washington must adopt a flexible and multi-dimensional approach, combining aspects of cooperation and deterrence at once.
Developing this approach would require strengthening channels of communication between Washington and Moscow, Moscow and the European Union, and Moscow and Eastern European countries, to ensure cooling tensions. It will also requires intensifying Washington’s participation in the Minsk diplomatic process, launched since 2014, which will allow Washington to strengthen its relations with Kiev without provoking Moscow, while pushing Kiev towards adopting a more flexible approach to the Donbas and working to neutralize the Ukrainian arena according to a formula that satisfies Moscow on the one hand and strengthens Kiev’s relations with the European Union on the other. In the midst of all these moves, Washington should continue to possess tools to pressure Moscow, either militarily or politically, yet without provoking it.
In conclusion, despite the threats the crisis poses to Washington, it offers the United States numerous opportunities, particularly with Washington playing a greater role in it. The continued threats faced by the US’ European partners may push them to continue to join the Washington camp, which would enable them to build a counter-front against China.
